Certainly when I say "social contract" it's a metaphor. I don't literally mean a legal contract that people sign. Rather, what I mean is that in exchange for the benefits of living in a society (mutual safety, cooperation on tasks, exchange of ideas, etc.) people give up some of their individual rights (e.g. they agree to recognize private property). Part of what is confusing me, is that respect for individual freedom is often one of the primary components of the social contract.
What I'm not understanding is what you are advocating. Are you saying that society should be structured around an absolute morality provided by a religion? Are you advocating some sort of neo-tribalism where society is built around extended family groups? Do you believe in anarchic utopianism where there would be no crime if there was no government?
IMO, you are advocating for the existing system, which creates the terror events, fear, etc and indoctrinates the populace to their way of thinking. This is plainly immoral - we have a society based in widely-believed lies. You can dispute my characterisation - but, if you were to research 'news', history, science, etc more deeply, I think you would find that the explanations are merely expedient devices to get you 'bought in'. The aim is to get the turkeys to vote for Christmas - or more specifically - to vote for their servitude. If you get people to go believe in whatever fresh disempowering horror has been created, despite the lack of any personal evidence, you are able to move them towards greater dependence on external governance. You are supporting enslavement.
The opposite to this, is autonomous, self-guided individuals that don't need external governance. I know what I want to do and don't want guidance. Note this is NOT an allowed option. I don't want to pay protection money (taxes) to others, especially when they use that money against me.
Ask yourself, is it acceptable that I live freely? With the ability to self-govern myself, defend myself against attacks on my freedom - eg against police levying fines, requesting licensing, etc - in order to interact in society? You'd think so.. but what we actually have is slavery that wants to call itself 'freedom'.
What I am advocating is 'anything but slavery', even covert slavery. This is easily achieved IMO, by the application of a simple moral principle - the golden rule - "do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated". If someone acts against you, you are free to take responsibility and respond as you see fit.
So, I think you have an idea that 'without the social contract, we would be run by the mafia' while failing to realise that you are already run by the very worst mafia! They are invisible to you. And, worse than that, you are parroting the nonsense beliefs they have taught you at school, fully accepting the slave mentality that they would have all their slaves proclaim, and proclaiming it to others.
What I'm not understanding is what you are advocating. Are you saying that society should be structured around an absolute morality provided by a religion? Are you advocating some sort of neo-tribalism where society is built around extended family groups? Do you believe in anarchic utopianism where there would be no crime if there was no government?